DISMISS and Opinion Filed February 2, 2015
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-13-01738-CV
LEONARD R. THOMAS, Appellant
V.
DALLAS COUNTY, CITY OF DALLAS,
DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,
DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,
DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND,
AND PARKLAND HOSPITAL DISTRICT, Appellees
On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. TX-12-31766
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart
Opinion by Chief Justice Wright
Before the Court is appellees’ October 15, 2014 letter that we treat as a motion to dismiss
the appeal. Appellees contend the appeal should be dismissed because appellant, appearing pro
se, has failed to file a brief that complies with the rules of appellate procedure.
Initially, we must note that a pro se litigant is held to the same standards as licensed
attorneys and must comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. See Strange v. Cont’l
Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676, 677-78 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, pet. denied). On appeal, as at trial,
the pro se appellant must properly present its case.
Appellant’s original one-page appellate brief was wholly deficient. Among other
deficiencies, the brief contains no citations to the record and fails to contain a clear and concise
argument for the contentions made with appropriate citations to authorities. See TEX. R. APP. P.
38.1 (d), (g) & (i). We notified appellant of the multiple deficiencies and directed her to file an
amended brief. We cautioned appellant that failure to file an amended brief correcting the
deficiencies may result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. Appellant filed a
motion for an extension of time to file an amended brief. This Court granted appellant’s motion
extending the time to July 14, 2014. As of today’s date, appellant has not filed an amended brief.
Appellant’s brief contained substantial deficiencies that she failed to correct by filing an
amended brief Accordingly, we grant appellees’ motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 42.3(b) & (c).
131738F.P05
/Carolyn Wright/
CAROLYN WRIGHT
CHIEF JUSTICE
–2–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
LEONARD R. THOMAS, Appellant On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas.
No. 05-13-01738-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. TX-12-31766.
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright.
DALLAS COUNTY, CITY OF DALLAS, Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart,
DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL participating.
DISTRICT, DALLAS COUNTY
COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,
DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL
EQUALIZATION FUND, AND
PARKLAND HOSPITAL DISTRICT,
Appellees
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.
It is ORDERED that appellees, DALLAS COUNTY, CITY OF DALLAS, DALLAS
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT, DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND, AND PARKLAND
HOSPITAL DISTRICT, recover their costs of this appeal from appellant, LEONARD R.
THOMAS.
Judgment entered February 2, 2015.
–3–
Leonard R. Thomas v. Dallas County
Combined Opinion